+1 !
That is what UTA does to 'security' RFCs in majority of cases, BTW.
Orit.
_____________________________
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: wrt draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs
To: =JeffH <jeff.hodges@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IETF Discussion List <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, <uta@xxxxxxxx>, <draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs@xxxxxxxx>, <uta-chairs@xxxxxxxx>
> This seems to me to be clearly "updating" or "profiling" RFC6125 normative
> language, in the specific email use case.
Profiling it for email, yes. Why should that make it *update* the
document that specifies the general process? Profiles need to
normatively reference what they profile, but not the other way 'round.
Barry
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: wrt draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs
To: =JeffH <jeff.hodges@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IETF Discussion List <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, <uta@xxxxxxxx>, <draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs@xxxxxxxx>, <uta-chairs@xxxxxxxx>
> This seems to me to be clearly "updating" or "profiling" RFC6125 normative
> language, in the specific email use case.
Profiling it for email, yes. Why should that make it *update* the
document that specifies the general process? Profiles need to
normatively reference what they profile, but not the other way 'round.
Barry